Pure Economic Loss and Pure Psychiatric Harm Flashcards Preview

GDL > Pure Economic Loss and Pure Psychiatric Harm > Flashcards

Flashcards in Pure Economic Loss and Pure Psychiatric Harm Deck (18)
Loading flashcards...
1

Murphy v Brentwood Council. What is the ruling?

Pure economic loss cannot be claimed in Tort

2

Hedley Byrne. What is the ruling?

Where a special relationship has been established, PEL is claimable

3

Spartan Steel v Martin. What is the ruling?

Pure economic loss is not claimable, unless it is directly consequential from physical damage

4

Pure economic loss is not claimable, even if it is as a consequence of a third party's injury. What is the case?

London Borough of Islington v University College Hospital

5

What is the initial case for Negligent misstatement?

Hedley Byrne v Heller

6

What are the four tests in Caparo v Dickman for the existence of a special relationship between the two parties?

1. Did the advisor know the purpose of the advice?
2. Did the adviser know that the advise would be communicated?
3. Did the adviser know the advice would be acted upon without independent investigation?
4. Was the advice acted upon?

7

White v Jones. What is the case?

A solicitor was found to owe a duty of care to the children of a person making a will

8

Spring v Guardian Assurance. What is the ruling?

An employer was found to be liable for making a negligent misstatement in giving a reference.

9

What is the judgement in Smith v Eric Bush?

An exclusion notice on a contract was found not to meeet the requirement of reasonableness.

10

Weller v Food and Mouth. What is the ruling?

No duty for pure economic loss even when there is physical damage to a resource that is relied on.

11

Pure economic loss is not claimable, unless it is directly consequential from physical damage. What is the case?

Spartan Steel v Martin

12

Advice given, even on a social occasion, can create a special relationship. Which case?

Chaudhry v Prabhakar

13

What are the basic criteria for an afflication to count as "pure psychiatric harm"?

It must be:

-Caused by a sudden shock
AND
A medically recognised psychiatric illness
OR
A shock induced physical condition

14

Page v Smith. What is the ruling?

For a claim to succeed with relation to primary victims

- It is not neceessary for that psyciatric harm to be reasonably foreseeable
-Victims must have been reasonably able to foresee physical injury
-Victims must be in "the danger zone".

15

For a claim to succeed with relation to primary victims

- It is not neceessary for that psyciatric harm to be reasonably foreseeable
-Victims must have been reasonably able to foresee physical injury
-Victims must be in "the danger zone".

Which case?

Page v Smith.

16

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

For secondary victims
- It must be reasonably foreseeable that psychiatric harm would be incurred.
-There must be a relationship of love and affection between the primary victim and secondary victim
-They must see with their own eyes

17

In which case did a mother see her family in hospital after a crash. Was she able to claim?

Yes. McLouglin v O'Brian

18

Will rescuers automatically be primary victims? Which case?

No. White v Chief Constable.